The implementation of the 2026 Gambling Prevention Act could mark a significant stride in combatting the economic drain caused by online gambling. It was deemed essential to replace the outdated Public Gambling Act of 1867. Nevertheless, the enforcement methods outlined in the new anti-gambling legislation have sparked controversy regarding their potential infringement on citizens’ fundamental rights.
Bangladesh’s legal framework is firmly rooted in its constitution, serving as the bedrock for all laws. Section 44 of the 2026 Gambling Prevention Act empowers the government to leverage advanced technologies such as AI-driven monitoring systems, Deep Packet Inspection (DPI), Risk Scoring System, Transaction Monitoring System, data analytics, among others, to detect and prevent online gambling and betting activities. While the use of cutting-edge technology to combat crime is understandable, the deployment of DPI for monitoring online activities raises concerns about potential privacy violations for internet users.
Deep Packet Inspection functions by scrutinizing the actual data content flowing through a network checkpoint, rather than merely inspecting information at the source or IP address level. It operates akin to a post office opening envelopes to scrutinize every letter’s content. By allowing DPI usage, the government gains the capability to scrutinize actual data content, potentially subjecting all internet users in Bangladesh to surveillance. Given that most individuals utilize the internet for various activities like financial transactions, social media interactions, and more, many may unknowingly expose sensitive data due to a lack of encryption knowledge. This unrestricted use of DPI could encroach on the privacy rights of citizens.
This approach may conflict with Article 43(b) of the Bangladesh Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to privacy in their communications, albeit subject to reasonable limitations in the interest of state security, public morality, or public health. Without well-defined regulations and judicial oversight, the utilization of DPI under the new law might extend beyond preventing online gambling, potentially leading to misuse.
Of particular concern are Sections 36(1) and 36(2) of the act, which authorize police officers to obtain warrants from the Cyber Tribunal to seize and search digital devices and make warrantless arrests in cases where evidence could be compromised. By asserting the volatility of digital evidence, this provision could pave the way for potential threats to citizens’ constitutional rights. The perceived broad powers granted to police officers could lead to unwarranted arrests based solely on suspicion, jeopardizing individual rights.
While the constitutional right to privacy is subject to reasonable restrictions, providing police officers with the authority to seize, search, and arrest based primarily on suspicion without judicial review appears to overstep the bounds of reasonableness. The potential threat to freedom of speech, expression, and press posed by warrantless actions under the Gambling Prevention Act underscores the need for caution in balancing law enforcement with individual rights.
The constitution mandates effective measures to combat gambling under Article 18(2. However, such measures should not jeopardize citizens’ constitutional rights. Surveillance tools like DPI render all citizens’ data vulnerable, extending beyond online gamblers. In essence, leveraging technology and expanded police authority to combat gambling should never come at the expense of fundamental rights.
